Friday, January 20, 2012

File this one in the “broken record” department: prepare for yet another season of MLB’s blackout policy remaining in place.

The reason for the broken record? This story has been written repeatedly for years. A source at MLB said that for all practical purposes, the matter will likely not be addressed for the upcoming season.

For the uninitiated, the question is, “Why should I be concerned?” That depends on whether you are, or planning to, purchase MLB Extra Innings or subscribe to MLB.TV.

In a nutshell, there are two ways you can be hit with the “blackout blues”. National broadcast partners FOX and ESPN have exclusivity agreements in which no matter where you live, games are blacked out on MLB Extra Innings and MLB.TV.

...And about the national blackout policy, any chance that happens soon? In speaking with sources close to the matter, when asked if the possibility it won’t be considered until contracts are renewed with ESPN and FOX, the reply was, “Probably.”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

i don't understand how, FINANCIALLY, that blacking out "home" games in area where people obviously aren't gonna go downtown to watch and where the local cable doesn't actually CARRY the game - how this is GOOD for building/retaining fan base.

so next year when the astros will have a contract with comcast, all the people in the rest of texas who don't, won't be able to watch the astros, if they even wanted to in the first place. AND that is even assuming that out of houston, that the rockets/astros channel will even BE in standard cable packages as FSSW is.

I use an out of town proxy that works well when I want to see a local game. The quality isn't as good but still decent. The proxy cost is about $6 but I need it for other stuff anyway.

I did not know that. The local blackout of Royals games on MLB.tv is the only thing keeping me from dropping cable entirely.

i don't understand how, FINANCIALLY, that blacking out "home" games in area where people obviously aren't gonna go downtown to watch and where the local cable doesn't actually CARRY the game - how this is GOOD for building/retaining fan base.

I think its the same reason they don't give away free seats for unsold tickets. If you give it away for free sometimes, people aren't going to pay for it the rest of the time.

i don't understand how, FINANCIALLY, that blacking out "home" games in area where people obviously aren't gonna go downtown to watch and where the local cable doesn't actually CARRY the game - how this is GOOD for building/retaining fan base.

Well, it's not. But it does give some leverage for the rights holder against the local cable company. For instance, my understanding is that MASN has been at war with the cable companies in NC, trying to get 'first tier' or whatever status on those cable systems. MASN even set up a shell website where supposed legions of O's/Nats fans in NC clamor to get their teams' games carried down there.

Seems to me that best -- well, not best, but most obvious -- solution is to slap the fans with a blackout-bypass fee that would be added to the base Extra Innings/mlb.tv subscription.

Isn't part of their logic that if they drop the blackout rules, Fox Sports (and other regional sports networks) will be less likely to hand out those giant TV contracts that are all the rage these days? (They'll still get contracts, but with less money, which is bad. Instead of more money, which is good.) Surely, that money is far more important than the fans' desire to watch their home team.

Edit: Ehh, this has all basically been said. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Isn't part of their logic that if they drop the blackout rules, Fox Sports (and other regional sports networks) will be less likely to hand out those giant TV contracts that are all the rage these days?

Not just part, that's pretty much the entirety of the logic. I can entirely understand MLB or the teams giving local exclusivity to the regional sports networks for higher prices. But the problematic situation is when the MLB.TV blackout applies but the RSN isn't even available for a particular customer or area, like the Brewers in Iowa. MLB and the teams are flat-out costing themselves viewership and revenue. Nobody benefits when a game isn't available at all. MLB either can't identify those situations technologically, or just can't be arsed to care.

so next year when the astros will have a contract with comcast, all the people in the rest of texas who don't, won't be able to watch the astros, if they even wanted to in the first place.

Some would argue the Astros are making this moot.

Seriously, my condolences to the good people of Iowa and Las Vegas. At least thanks to the relatively flat terrain, Iowans can hear many major league games on radio at night, at least for those teams who still have 50,000-watt AM flagships such as WPHT in Philadelphia, WLW in Cincinnati, KMOX in St. Louis and WGN and the White Sox flagship (is it 670 or 1000?) in Chicago. (And many MLB teams still have radio network affiliates in Iowa -- the two Chicago teams, St. Louis, Kansas City, Minnesota and even Milwaukee in NE Iowa.)

You know there's a certain website in Spain that streams almost every live sporting event you could think of. Not that I would ever use such a thing, I'm still mad at the Spaniards for the Inquisition.

I can entirely understand MLB or the teams giving local exclusivity to the regional sports networks for higher prices. But the problematic situation is when the MLB.TV blackout applies but the RSN isn't even available for a particular customer or area, like the Brewers in Iowa. MLB and the teams are flat-out costing themselves viewership and revenue. Nobody benefits when a game isn't available at all. MLB either can't identify those situations technologically, or just can't be arsed to care.

See #10 above. It's leverage for disgruntled fans to urge their local cable companies to carry the RSN. But is this a problem for DirectTV subscribers also? I thought they carried all the RSNs.

Not just part, that's pretty much the entirety of the logic. I can entirely understand MLB or the teams giving local exclusivity to the regional sports networks for higher prices. But the problematic situation is when the MLB.TV blackout applies but the RSN isn't even available for a particular customer or area, like the Brewers in Iowa. MLB and the teams are flat-out costing themselves viewership and revenue. Nobody benefits when a game isn't available at all. MLB either can't identify those situations technologically, or just can't be arsed to care.

You're not looking at this with an RSN point of view. They all want increased carriage, so they can get more subscriber fees and charge bigger advertising rates. And if they can set up the situation where a die-hard fan is without their precious team because of the obfuscation of the cable provider (allowing them to run commercials that say, "Do you want the Royals? Call your local cable company and demand FOX Sports Midwest!"), all the better. Customer demand is how the RSNs get carriage, disproportionately.

In other words, the desire of the fanbase to see a blacked-out game is a bargaining chip, a leverage position, a positive. Not a negative.

But is this a problem for DirectTV subscribers also? I thought they carried all the RSNs.

They carry the RSNs, but the games are theoretically blacked out everywhere except the local viewing area. If they get blacked out for you, you have to go through an appeals process to get that resolved. It's an ugly process, and I have no idea if (for example) people in Iowa can successfully petition to get Cubs/Sox games on CSNC.

The proxy thing works, but it's a bit cumbersome. And I haven't worked out a way to use it with my Roku; I don't watch a lot on my actual laptop. (I'm guessing I could use a computer as a proxy relay, but I just haven't bothered to tinker with it yet.)

But is this a problem for DirectTV subscribers also? I thought they carried all the RSNs.

They carry the RSNs, but the games are theoretically blacked out everywhere except the local viewing area. If they get blacked out for you, you have to go through an appeals process to get that resolved. It's an ugly process, and I have no idea if (for example) people in Iowa can successfully petition to get Cubs/Sox games on CSNC.

Really? A subscriber has to petition DirectTV to show something they already carry? It's not a case of bugging the local cable company to carry an RSN. DirectTV already carries the RSN, so why should it be blacked out?

I've had ExtraInnings since 2002, and it seems as if there were fewer games last year in direct competition with the Fox Saturday GOTW than there used to be, which meant that virtually none of the games were unavailable. The only complaint I have is that Fios doesn't give you as many choices of home or road telecasts as I used to get with DirectTV.

In other words, the desire of the fanbase to see a blacked-out game is a bargaining chip, a leverage position, a positive. Not a negative.

Yeah, in theory the local cable company in Iowa might end up contracting with Comcast Sports Net to carry the Cubs if enough people want it. But in theory the local cable company in Seattle could want to carry the Cubs, too. The blackout concept makes some sense, but they rules are too restrictive, bordering on idiotic.

Really? A subscriber has to petition DirectTV to show something they already carry? It's not a case of bugging the local cable company to carry an RSN. DirectTV already carries the RSN, so why should it be blacked out?

If you're not in a zip code that is in DirecTV's database of the DMA (Designated Market Area) of the particular RSN, then the games will be blacked out. If, for some reason, your zip code isn't in their database, then you have to appeal that with DirecTV.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's something DirecTV has in place as part of their agreement with MLB. That's why the "sports" package that DirecTV sells to give you all of the RSNs is silly. About the only actual sporting events (as opposed to studio shows or fishing or some crap like that) that don't seem to get blacked out are college sports (though more of those have moved to college networks) and minor sports like Arena Football.

This has also come up with Dish and AT&T U-Verse, and probably others too. (It's less common on U-Verse because U-Verse is mostly only in metro areas with local RSNs anyway. But it happens.)

I only get 2 NFL games a week and there is no internet option. So I'm not pissed yet. Although the NFL is dumping the exclusive Direct TV deal next season, so baseball will fall behind the NFL for the first time in over a decade. MLB better figure this out very soon.

In other words, the desire of the fanbase to see a blacked-out game is a bargaining chip, a leverage position, a positive. Not a negative.

Yeah, in theory the local cable company in Iowa might end up contracting with Comcast Sports Net to carry the Cubs if enough people want it. But in theory the local cable company in Seattle could want to carry the Cubs, too. The blackout concept makes some sense, but they rules are too restrictive, bordering on idiotic.

- it is only a bargaining chip somewhere there is actually a fan base
but time-warner, charter are gonna carry a comcast channel? REaLLY?

the rules are indeed idiotic. if i move to austin, i couldn't watch the astros even if i wanted to after this year - no comcast. goodbye any hope of fanbase. stupid

and yeah, i can see paying to watch a game on mlb.tv in the blackout area where THERE IS NO RSN!!!

but just decreasing the fanbase is silly

- as for the astros radio, milo is senile and his 2 sidekicks stink, and they sure as heck ain't increasing no fanbase